Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

My Petition to Pardon David Gregory

Regular readers of this
site and my twitter feed know several things. First, David Gregory and certain unknown
others at NBC are at risk for being prosecuted due to his apparent unlawful
possession of a high-capacity magazine in the District Columbia. Second, you know that I am appalled that he
could be prosecuted for violating a law that I consider to be in violation of
his Second Amendment rights. And third,
you know I have suggested that Obama might pardon him. Well, I have written a petition at the White
House’s website seeking just such a pardon, but the space in which to make my
case was too small. So, if this works, I
am going to direct anyone reading the petition to read my entire argument for the
pardon of Mr. Gregory and every person who has been unjustly prosecuted under
this law. I hope you enjoy it and you do
sign the petition. After all, if we get
enough signatures, it will require an official White House response.

Expect this post to be updated
without a notation of such updates as I work to put up the petition and this post
and the crosslink them both.

The petition is here. As of this writing, the White House website states
that it will not be publicly viewable until it reaches one hundred and fifty
signatures. So please help!

On the other hand, there is a petition
to prosecute him, here, which just seems mean-spirited.

---------------------------------------

Pardon David Gregory and others for violating D.C.'s gun laws as they
violate the Second Amendment and for other reasons

Recently in an interview on Meet
the Press with NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre, host David Gregory produced
what he claimed was an empty high capacity magazine, which held up to thirty
bullets, and while waving it about asked Mr. LaPierre about whether such high
capacity magazines should be banned.

As you are certainly aware, possessing
this magazine was in direct violation of D.C. Code §7-2506.1(b) which states
that

No person in the
District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding
device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the
purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding
device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than
10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device”
shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of
operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

There is some suggestion in the
press that he might have mistakenly believed this was legal due to poor advice
from the ATF itself although the truth of the matter has yet to be definitively
determined. But unfortunately mistake of
law is no defense to its violation. Further,
the fact that Mr. Gregory was unlikely to harm a person is beside the
point. As President Obama surely knows
as an attorney, this is a strict liability offense; there is no requirement
that Mr. Gregory have a guilty mindset.

However, prosecution for this
offense would be unjust for several reasons.

First, the prohibition violates
the Second Amendment. The purpose of the
Second Amendment is in significant part to allow the people to challenge the
military might of the Federal Government should it ever become necessary to
invoke the right of rebellion. While I
do not expect to see a valid invocation of this right within my lifetime, the
Constitutional right nonetheless must be respected and accordingly we the
people must have access to arms commensurate to this task.

Second, the ban is
arbitrary. Limiting the size of a
magazine only means you have to reload more often. A person experienced with a firearm can
perform that task in less than a second.
It will not prevent a single massacre.

Third, because the law is a
strict liability act, it means that people acting wholly innocently can be
caught in its snare. So for instance, if
a man should see a child holding on to such a magazine, and take it from the
child for the purpose of turning it in to the to police, he inadvertently
violates the same laws and faces up to one year in confinement for this
“crime.” This is manifestly unjust. Strict liability crimes should be limited to
the most obviously wrong or dangerous acts, and carrying around what amounts to
a metal box with springs does not count.

Finally, these laws are unjust
precisely because they are so complicated.
If the District of Columbia’s laws are so labyrinth that even an
experienced ATF agent doesn’t know what is and is not illegal, what chance does
the ordinary citizen have? The
complexity of these laws in turn creates a chilling effect that discourages law
abiding citizens from the ownership of guns in the first place, compromising
their ability to protect their own lives and this great republic.

Accordingly, we the undersigned
petition President Obama to pardon David Gregory so as to remove the cloud of
potential prosecution from him forthwith.
The pardon should also be granted to any person who helped him procure
this magazine. Further, we petition that
the President review all other convictions under this statute, and pardon every
other person convicted of violating this statute, unless there is strong
evidence that such persons did commit crimes with such high capacity magazines
or intended to do so. Finally, we ask
President Obama to review the laws of the District of Columbia and take a
leadership position in making sure the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the Second
Amendment to the Constitution, is fully respected and that the laws are made
comprehensible to people of ordinary intelligence and knowledge.

---------------------------------------

So, if you agree, I hope you will
go to the Whitehouse website and sign it and use your First Amendment rights to
vindicate the Second. Because after all,
it is the Second Amendment which protects the First.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds
fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
Historyhere.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention
trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.

5 comments:

A pardon is only effective after Gregory is convicted which would be the least desirable outcome. A vindication of the Second Amendment is only possible if Gregory is acquitted. To strike down the unjust and unconstitutional DC laws there must first be a trial.

First; initial comment by scrubjay is correct, and as you've said about what Obama, as a lawyer, should know; he also should know that what you are petitioning for is inapplicable. You may want to request a dismissal of charges, a decision not to prosecute, or even acknowledged "selective prosecution."

You also state he produced "what he claimed was ..." but he made no such claim. What he said was "Here is a magazine for ammunition that carries thirty bullets," called a declarative sentence, not the characterization you use.

While you say that a petition to prosecute him "... just seems mean-spirited, you neglect to mention that Gregory made that entire video in a mean-spirited fashion. He interrupted the first answer and every question following, began questions with "You have to admit or concede" trying to force the answers he wanted, and repeated "your words" to frame issues. In short,he used every reprehensible trick he thought would be useful for his agenda.

Most serious you neglected, as in your example, if one should "see a child holding on to such a magazine" the related issue of how that child found, or Gregory got that item. There are related legal issues that somebody brought that into the jurisdiction, is part of the traffic in illegal items, perhaps even smuggling; none of which will be pursued without an arrest or at a minimum, an investigation.

Finally, while asserting that you do not expect this to change in your lifetime while I do, you present no cogent means that a "pardon" will help to accomplish anything other than a continuation of present circumstances - laws enforcement for only the non-special. I acknowledge you include "all others" in this request for a parson, I note it as an afterthought, with "and all others," not as a request for him and all others.

I dislike countering "my own side" but find it strange that you end this post without a pardon for Kimberlin, which I have followed, but only for Gregory. Similar to my being told that I waste my vote on a third party candidate by those that claim to know better. Charging and trying him is the quickest, shortest way, as Alinsky says "make them live up to their rules" and is also the right and proper way to uphold the law.

To be pardoned, he's going to have to confess guilt. No, we need trials, both for possession (for those who possessed the magazine(s)) and for conspiracy to commit possession, for those and others who aided in obtaining, establishing the illegality, ....

After a couple of rounds of hung juries, hopefully the law will be repealed to stop the on-going circus. Investigation into other convictions, the use of the charge in plea bargaining, etc. can then begin.

A pardon before a conviction is not really a pardon. It is a get out of jail free card. It is a misapplication of the law and an abuse of the process. If that's the way it's going to work then a president should always issue a pardon with the appointment to the position and never have to worry about any and all malfeasance in office by his appointees.

About Me

Just a regular, sort of cranky moderately conservative lawyer, living in the greater Washington, D.C. and ruminating on law, life and the local spectator sport known as politics.
Btw, if you want to email me, write to edmd5.20.10 [at] gmail.com. I assume by now you understand that you are supposed to use one of those @ symbols for "[at]."